NY Governonr, Pataki (R-what did you expect?) Says He'll Veto Bill on Contraceptive

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
Anticipating Ads, Pataki Says He'll Veto Bill on Contraceptive
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ and AL BAKER
Published: August 1, 2005


Gov. George E. Pataki, anticipating an advertising attack by leaders of the abortion-rights movement in New York, said that he would veto a bill to make the so-called morning-after pill available without a prescription, his office said last night.

Mr. Pataki, who is considering a 2008 presidential bid, was responding to plans by Naral Pro-Choice New York to kick off a nationwide television advertising blitz against him intended to pressure him into backing the bill.

The group's planned blitz stemmed from Mr. Pataki's refusal to say whether he would support the bill approved by the State Legislature that would make the so-called morning after pill, which prevents pregnancy after sex, available to women and girls without a prescription. But when told about the imminent advertising campaign last night, the Pataki administration reacted with surprise and later said the governor would veto the measure.

Kevin C. Quinn, a spokesman for the governor. said in a statement that the governor's main objection was that the bill would not include any provisions that would prevent minors from having access to the drug. In addition, Mr. Quinn said, the governor would be willing to reconsider the measure if the Legislature crafted and passed a new bill that addressed his concerns about the drug's availability to minors, as well as "other flaws."

But that did not satisfy abortion rights activists who were counting on the governor to sign the legislation, who had a difficult time getting Republicans in the State Senate to pass the measure the first time around

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/01/nyregion/01pataki.html

Yes, the country continues to move backward while the rest of the world continues to move forward on issues like this. :roll:
 
Yes, let's make it easier for women to arbitrarily kill their babies for whatever reason they feel like. In fact let's make it as easy as popping a pill whenever you want. Yay!!!!

:roll:
 
Hell, you actually think a pill designed to abort a pregnancy is harmless enough to be used without the supervision of a physician? Do you realize the hormonal overload RU-486 induces in order for it to work? It's a very dangerous drug when not taken properly.

Damn skippy he should veto this. Imagine how many teenage girls might take twice or more the amount recommended petrified that it might not work. Do you really think an overemotional 14 or 15 year old is going to follow the recommended dosage if the alternative is their parents finding out their sexually active and pregnant?

Good call governor.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Hell, you actually think a pill designed to abort a pregnancy is harmless enough to be used without the supervision of a physician? Do you realize the hormonal overload RU-486 induces in order for it to work? It's a very dangerous drug when not taken properly.

Damn skippy he should veto this. Imagine how many teenage girls might take twice or more the amount petrified that it might not work. Do you really think an overemotional 14 or 15 year old is going to follow the recommended dosage if the alternative is their parents finding out their sexually active and pregnant?

Good call governor.[/QUOTE]
The article isn't talking about RU-486 (which is an abortion pill), it's talking about the morning after pill (which has nothing to do with abortion, other than its ability to prevent the need for it). The MAP prevents the egg from being released, there by preventing contraception. Hence the term "Emergency Contraceptive".
 
You are correct.

It's still highly concentrated birth control pills which, in every state in the union, are not available OTC. If the low dosage needs a prescription why wouldn't the high dosage?

That's my point. I'm all for contraception and even this emergency precaution but if the normal birth control pill needs an OB/GYN or MD to oversee its use a much higher concentration of the same type of hormones should be overseen by doctors as well.

To me it's not a moral issue but a legitimate health concern.
 
And don't forget, if you want to take the morning-after pill, but go to the wrong drugstore and they refuse to sell it to you, you're too late anyway. Or if you sleep in late, or if it's too far to go to the drugstore.
Last I saw, you don't need a prescription to buy condoms. Hell, you don't even need to talk to a person--go to a c-store bathroom.
And if you're going to be taking drugs, why not go ahead and get on the pill itself? Or one of the myriad other methods? At least then a doctor can be involved, and possibly even a parent [god! what a throwback! of course, didn't we want parents all involved in the choices of gaming for their kids?], to be able to notice and counter and side effects which drugs of all sorts may have.
Are we *trying* to free our children from having to show *any* responsibility for their own lives?
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Yes, let's make it easier for women to arbitrarily kill their babies for whatever reason they feel like. In fact let's make it as easy as popping a pill whenever you want. Yay!!!!

:roll:[/QUOTE]
Should we ban coathangers too?

More babies are killed by coathangers than contraceptives.
You believe that life begins at conception, right? Contraceptives stop conception.

h12.gif
 
No, we shouldn't ban coathangers. That's the same--liberal--logic that says we should ban guns, because a psycho uses one to kill somebody. A coathanger, a gun, a pill, are all tools. Tools can be used correctly or incorrectly, and very few tools are inherently 'good' or 'bad,' it depends on how they're used.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Are we *trying* to free our children from having to show *any* responsibility for their own lives?[/QUOTE]

Taking the morning-after pill is still be responsible.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']No, we shouldn't ban coathangers. That's the same--liberal--logic that says we should ban guns, because a psycho uses one to kill somebody. A coathanger, a gun, a pill, are all tools. Tools can be used correctly or incorrectly, and very few tools are inherently 'good' or 'bad,' it depends on how they're used.[/QUOTE]

How is a gun a "tool"? Is a rocket launcher a "tool" as well?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You are correct.

It's still highly concentrated birth control pills which, in every state in the union, are not available OTC. If the low dosage needs a prescription why wouldn't the high dosage?

That's my point. I'm all for contraception and even this emergency precaution but if the normal birth control pill needs an OB/GYN or MD to oversee its use a much higher concentration of the same type of hormones should be overseen by doctors as well.

To me it's not a moral issue but a legitimate health concern.[/QUOTE]
And a valid concern it is, but I don't see why it should apply to this particular medicine. You could make the arguement of "people could hurt themselves if they don't follow the directions" to any medacine on the shelf. If you down a bottle of childrens' Tylenol you're likely to get yourself mighty sick, but I hardly think you should need a perscription to buy it.

You have to leave a certain amount of credibility/responsibility with the consumer, although it does seem like it's a fine line between what's OTC and what isn't.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']The article isn't talking about RU-486 (which is an abortion pill), it's talking about the morning after pill (which has nothing to do with abortion, other than its ability to prevent the need for it). The MAP prevents the egg from being released, there by preventing contraception. Hence the term "Emergency Contraceptive".[/QUOTE]

It can also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, I don't know which is more common.

[quote name='dtcarson']And don't forget, if you want to take the morning-after pill, but go to the wrong drugstore and they refuse to sell it to you, you're too late anyway. Or if you sleep in late, or if it's too far to go to the drugstore.[/QUOTE]

I think it is actually a 72 hr window IIRC.

[quote name='Dead of Knight']The FDA was going to make them available OTC until the right-wing bullshit happened.[/QUOTE]

Though I'm sure some politics was involved in the decision, it was only a panel of advisors that suggested it become OTC. The FDA's decision was based on the fact that did not think minors should use the drugs without supervision.

Personally I really don't care either way, but the pill does affect hormones and many drugs that can do the same, like some acne medications, are only available through perscription. I don't see a case for this to be much different, but I don't see any real danger in it if maybe they regulate the sales for it OTC much like they do Sudafed and such now (or at least in my state).
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Should we ban coathangers too?

More babies are killed by coathangers than contraceptives.
You believe that life begins at conception, right? Contraceptives stop conception.

h12.gif
[/QUOTE]

Plastic coathangers are okay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top